在既往印象中，中国人撒谎、造假司空见惯，因为不用为此付出太多代价，甚至有人自诩：“不说假话办不成大事”！ 外国人信用造假，可能连身家性命都要赔上，还要连累家人，可谓“赔了夫人又折兵”，实在划不来！ 不知学术论文造假风险较小，还是论文造假的利益可观，如今外国人也纷纷以身试法，丢掉了个人赖以取信于人的客观和求真，陷入诚信危机的怪圈。 也许因为高水平论文等于更高级别的职位晋升、更大数额的经费支持、更显赫的名誉和地位，让任何人都抵挡不住诱惑吧！ 难怪诺贝尔奖仅凭一纸论文的高引用率进行预测不靠谱，也难怪有识之士不赞成以SCI论文论英雄，原来这些白纸黑字的玩意也能被铤而走险者玩弄于股掌之间。 像韩国如此注重诚信的民族，对待黄禹锡案仍然掺杂着很重的人情成分。因造假而服刑的黄禹锡，刑满释放后还是一条“好汉”，居然可以重启他的干细胞研究。 中国人学术造假的代价对于韩国人来说简直就是“小巫见大巫”，毫发无损！个别单位还会集体护短，甚至痛骂揭短者“不爱学校”，上面来查也是理直气壮地打报告称“查无实据”！ 不单单学术界如此不堪，当官做行政的又何尝不是犯事后尽可享受豁免，只不过“挪挪窝”而已，换一个地方照样做官，改一个职位仍然能称王称霸。 制度设计缺陷，加之惩处轻微或不惩处，让造假的代价可以忽略不计，大概是中国长期反腐不力的根本原因之一。 近闻哈佛大学125名学生涉嫌作弊，大概因为少不更事，“初生牛犊不怕虎”嘛，或者美国人把学生集体抄袭太当一回事，在中国这样的事老师见多了，根本不值一提。 纽约时报中文版今天发表一篇文章，谈到了学术造假遭遇撤稿这一世界性丑闻，有兴趣者可以读一读。 http://cn.nytimes.com/article/education/2012/10/16/c16fraud/ 学术论文为何频频撤稿？ CARL ZIMMER 报道 2012年10月16日 去年《自然》杂志(Nature)报道称，学术论文撤稿数在近十年激增十倍之多，每年撤销的科研论文超过300篇。 部分研究表明，实验差错是大多数论文撤稿的原因，然而在本周发表的一篇文章对论文撤稿进行了更深入的分析，对于这种善意的假设提出了质疑。 这篇研究报道刊登于《美国国家科学院院刊》( Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences )。两名科学家和一位医学信息顾问选取2047篇生物医学和生命科学领域的撤稿论文，并对撤稿原因进行深入分析。结果他们发现，在所有能辨明原因的撤稿论文中，有四分之三的论文撤稿源自学术不端。 “我们发现问题比想象中严重得多，”文章作者之一、阿图罗·卡萨德沃尔博士(Dr. Arturo Casadevall)如是说。卡萨德沃尔博士来自纽约市布朗克斯区的阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦医学院(Albert Einstein College of Medicine)。 文章另一位作者是来自华盛顿大学(University of Washington)的费里克·C·方博士(Dr. Ferric C. Fang)。两位专家对当下的科研文化早有批评。在他们看来，撤稿率上升反映出科研机制的不正常——科学家在不正当的激励之下容易犯下草率错误，甚至冒险发布错误数据。 “我们意识到需要更多披露撤稿原因的有力数据，”方博士表示。 他们与医学信息顾问R·格兰特·斯蒂恩博士(R. Grant Steen)合作，在美国国家医学图书馆(National Library of Medicine)维护的PubMed数据库中搜索2012年5月前发布的撤稿通知。斯蒂恩博士来自北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校(Chapel Hill, N.C.)，之前发表过文章分析近十年的撤稿事件。 “我们大概是强迫症发作，所以才会开始逐篇分析撤稿论文，”方博士说。 他们分析学术期刊引用的撤稿论文原因，同时也会全方位查找问题根源。 举例来说，博里斯·切斯基(Boris Cheskis)曾在任惠氏制药公司(Wyeth Research)资深科学家时，分别于2002年和2007年，与同事联合发表两篇有关雌激素信号转导机制的文章。他们随后要求撤回两篇文章，理由是文中部分数据“不可靠”。2010年，美国卫生和公众服务部(Department of Health and Human Services)下属机构——科研诚信办公室(Office of Research Integrity)判定切斯基博士伪造实验数据，存在学术不端行为。 切斯基博士最终与政府达成和解。他既不接受，也不否认上述指控，但是他同意不加入美国公共卫生署的任何顾问团，并且愿意在两年内在参加所有公共卫生署资助的研究时接受监督。 两篇文章的撤销报告并未指出存在欺骗行为。我们也无法联系切斯基博士本人对此作出评论。 方博士和同事深入研究科研诚信办公室的其他报告，同时查看相关新闻和“ Retraction Watch ”博客的跟踪报道（此博客专门监视论文撤稿的情况，调查学术不端的行为——译注）。经过他们的深入研究，他们把总计158篇论文的撤稿原因重新归类，列为“学术不端”文章。 “我们从未见过如此高水平的分析，”伊万·奥兰斯基博士(Dr. Ivan Oransky)表示。“它证实了我们的猜想。”奥兰斯基是“ Retraction Watch ”博客的作者，也是路透社健康版块的执行编辑。 奥兰斯基博士预测论文撤稿率将在未来持续增长。学术欺骗行为层出不穷，令他和搭档亚当·马库斯(Adam Marcus)疲于应付。 今年七月，日本麻醉科学会公布了麻醉学专家藤井善隆(Yoshitaka Fujii)在172篇论文中伪造数据的消息，其中大部分论文还未被正式撤销。“他们将着手调查这些伪造论文，”奥兰斯基说道。 埃默里大学(Emory University)卫生政策系教授本杰明·G·德鲁斯博士(Benjamin G. Druss)说，他认为论文中数据合理，随后又补充它们“有待查证”。他指出PubMed数据库中的论文撤稿率仅为万分之一，相比之下，该数据库中共有112908篇论文已经刊出修正版。 卡萨德沃尔对此持有异议。“这让我益发确信，我们的科研领域存在问题。”他强调道。 卡萨德沃尔继续说，就算存在欺骗行为的论文只是少数，撤稿率的攀升体现出科研领域赢家至上的文化。能否在重要期刊上发表文章，这将决定你是掌管实验室，还是面临失业。“于是某些人开始造假，”他告诉我们。 卡萨德沃尔继而指出，更好的监测技术，比如剽窃测试软件，也许有助于遏制学术不端行为，但是改变文化才是科学界需要做的头等大事。 “只要这种不恰当的奖励体制存在，问题就不会消失。”卡萨德沃尔博士表示。 本文最初发表于2012年10月1日。 翻译：李卓
Table S2. Investigators with Ten or More Retracted Articles* Author No. of Retractions Reason for Retraction Boldt, J 80 fraud Mori, N 36 fraud Herrmann, F 21 fraud Reuben, SS 18 fraud Slutsky, RA 18 fraud Matsuyama, W 17 fraud Schn, JH 17 fraud Darsee, JR 14 fraud Goldstein, G 14 error Pease, LR 14 fraud Bulfone-Paus, S 13 fraud Wang, Z 12 fraud Soman, VR 11 fraud Chiranjeevi, P 10 fraud Potti, A 10 fraud Sudb, J 10 fraud Thomas, JM 10 fraud *when multiple individuals from a single research group have been authors on retracted articles, the individual from the group on the greatest number of articles is listed .
虽然目前脱落酸（ABA）受体的争议已经结束（ http://f1000.com/reports/b/2/15/#bib-001 ），但是可能错误鉴定ABA受体的两篇Nature和一篇Science文章中，只有一篇Nature（ The RNA-binding protein FCA is an abscisic acid receptor ）被撤销了，另一篇nature（ The Mg-chelatase H subunit is an abscisic acid receptor ）的通讯作者是现任清华大学的张大鹏教授，他们认为在拟南芥中叶绿素合成途径的Mg螯合酶H亚基是脱落酸受体，然而别人报道大麦中的同源蛋白无此功能。那篇Science的通讯作者是NIBS的马力耕研究员。以下详细讨论这篇Science文章该不该撤销。 2007年，马力耕研究员在science上横空出世地发表了一篇鉴定植物激素脱落酸的受体的文章（A G Protein–Coupled Receptor Is a Plasma Membrane Receptor for the Plant Hormone Abscisic Acid）。该文指出拟南芥GCR2蛋白可能是一种新的G蛋白偶联受体（GPCR），并且是脱落酸受体。这篇文章一出来，立即引来大量人士围观，许多人唏嘘不已。说实话，当时在植物里还没有真真切切地鉴定出任何一个GPCR，马力耕等人却用预测软件推测GCR2是一个七次跨膜的GPCR，又用一系列实验表明GCR2可能是脱落酸受体。 之后，多人联合针对马力耕的文章发表了技术评论（Comment on "A G Protein–Coupled Receptor Is a Plasma Membrane Receptor for the Plant Hormone Abscisic Acid"），他们通过预测软件发现GCR2不太可能是膜蛋白，更别说是七次跨膜的GPCR，而更可能是细菌羊毛硫氨酸合成酶的同源蛋白。而且一些亲和力实验也不到位（比如用被撤销的nature文章中鉴定的ABA受体FCA做阳性对照），解释的不清楚。然而，马力耕等人根据自己补充的实验结果也进行了辩护（Response to Comment on "A G Protein–Coupled Receptor Is a Plasma Membrane Receptor for the Plant Hormone Abscisic Acid"），说现有的预测软件无法做到非常准确的预测，那么就不能否认GCR2可能是一种GPCR。事情似乎到此就为止了。 然而，某些人对科学问题就是要弄得清清楚楚，明明白白。（我们是实验室的老师说我就是个科学洁癖，呵呵。）据查，GCR2的结构已经被解析了，虽然还不知道结构长啥样，但是我可以预见：结构肯定表明GCR2不是个膜蛋白，而是一个可溶蛋白。为什么呢？马力耕的那篇文章竟然用大肠杆菌就成功表达了GCR2，我所看到的表达GPCR的文献中绝大多数都是用酵母或者昆虫细胞才能正确表达一个GPCR。另外，做GPCR的结构是非常困难的，只有某几个实验室目前做出来了。而GCR2很轻易就被某人做出来了，而且那人不是专门做GPCR的，也没有和做GPCR的人合作，于是不难猜测GCR2是个可溶蛋白。 如果GCR2是个可溶蛋白，那么马力耕的那一系列实验就很难站得住脚了，该不该撤销呢？中国学者有过主动撤销CNS的先例吗？ 其实，说到这里，又不得不提Science杂志上曾经非常热门的一篇文章：砷可以替代磷来维持某细菌GFAJ-1的生长。这个概念非常惊世骇俗，因为大家都知道砷是有毒的，一个生物机体竟然能用砷来维持生命，多么神奇，这颠覆了以前的构成生命活动的基本元素的理论。Science杂志将这篇文章于2010年12月在线后搁置了许久，最终予以发表。然而，就在前不久，science上两篇文章同时指出GFAJ-1细菌并没有把砷整合到自己的DNA中去，它仍然需要磷，不可或缺。原来，之前的science文章中培养细菌的条件并没有完全除去磷，而这种细菌有个特点就是能在极低的磷浓度下吸收磷并将其整合到自己的DNA中，虽然砷大量存在，但是并没有替代磷。也就是说这种细菌只是一种耐砷细菌而已。那么之前的那篇Science文章该被撤销吗？
Anil Potti博士是一位受人尊重、而且在美国具有注册临床肿瘤研究者的资格。他1977-1987年在印度康德拉巴德（Secunderabad, India）上中学，高中毕业时也是他们班的佼佼者，随后进入小花卉初级学院（Little Flower Junior College），在此也研修一些大专本科课程，主要是生物、物理和化学方面的。1989年,他作为6位候选人之一，与来自印度各地的其他5位获胜者进入到著名的韦诺尔（Vellore）基督教医学院接受医学和外科学士学位(M.B.B.S)的培训，并获得国优奖学金（National Merit Scholarship）的资助，以优异成绩从医学院毕业。1996年,他进入内科医生的医院实习期，实习就在美国北达科他大学的法戈医学院（University of North Dakota School of Medicine in Fargo），后来Anil Potti在此任总住院医师（Chief Resident），继而成为一名教员。2003年，以Anil Potti个人的经历，使其进入杜克大学（ Duke University）从事血液学和肿瘤学的研究,为期3年。在顺利完成了严格的培训计划之后,使他有资格获得血液学及医疗肿瘤学方面的认证。2006年,他完成了血液学/肿瘤学训练之后，由杜克大学聘任在杜克大学医学系当教员。 Anil Potti博士是医学肿瘤学方面的专科医生，而且在美国北达科他大学（University of North Dakota） 医学和健康科学学院医学系已经担任助理教授，而在杜克大学医学系（Department of Medicine at Duke University）担任副教授。对于其作为一名临床医生和教育工作者，Anil Potti博士已经获得多项著名奖项，如2010年约瑟夫·格林菲尔德辅导奖（ Joseph Greenfield Mentoring Award in 2010）,α-欧米茄-α(Alpha Omega Alpha),本年度医学学生优秀教师奖（Outstanding Teacher of the Year Award – Medical students）、Leonard B.Tow医学人文精神奖（Leonard B.Tow Humanism in Medicine Award）,内科住院医生优秀教师奖（Outstanding Teacher Award – Internal Medicine Residents）,Robert Silber 研究奖（Robert Silber Research Prize）,2008年美国临床肿瘤学会（ASCO）授予IDEA奖（国际发展与教育奖）（ASCO IDEA Mentor in 2008），还有Lisa Stafford 临床研究奖（Lisa Stafford Clinical Research Prize ）等。他同时也是一位多个社团的活跃分子，如美国的Alpha-Omega-Alpha优秀学生联合会(Alpha-Omega-Alpha (AOA) Honor Society),美国临床肿瘤学协会(American Society of Clinical Oncology)和美国癌症研究协会(American Association of Cancer Research)等。教育简历如下： 近来，Anil Potti博士以及合作者已经有6篇论文撤稿，但是这是否就是最后一篇，谁也无法给出一个肯定的回答，不过有人猜测近期可能还会出现新的，总数将接近一打( Potti retraction tally grows to six with a withdrawal in PLoS ONE, and will likely end up near adozen )。相关报道请浏览： An array of errors（ http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 ） http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/category/by-author/anil-potti-retractions/ Anil Potti and his former Duke colleagues have retracted a sixth paper, this one in PLoS ONE . According to the retraction notice for “ An Integrated Approach to the Prediction of Chemotherapeutic Response in Patients with Breast Cancer ,” the withdrawal was prompted by the retraction of a Nature Medicine paper that formed the basis of the PLoS ONE study’s approach: The chemotherapy sensitivity predictions as reported in this PLoS One article were based on an approach as described by Potti et al. in Nature Medicine (1). Reexamination of the validation datasets used for the Nature Medicine study has revealed the presence of errors in the labeling of clinical response in some datasets (2). Re-analysis of the predictive accuracy with correctly labeled data has shown that in two instances the reported signatures do not predict the response of the validation samples to chemotherapy (2). The authors of the Nature Medicine paper have therefore decided to retract that paper (2). Since the PLoS One article is based on the approach reported in the Nature Medicine article, we have decided to retract the PLoS One article. We apologize to readers for any inconvenience caused by the publication of our article in PLoS One. The PLoS ONE paper has been cited 29 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. As we reported in January when the Nature Medicine paper was retracted, that paper was cited more than 250 times. The PLoS ONE retraction means we are likely halfway through all of the paper withdrawals, according to a report in The Cancer Letter of an August 22, 2011Institute of Medicine meeting: Robert Califf, director of the Duke Translational Medicine Institute and vice chancellor for clinical research, said that the university has nearly completed an internal investigation of Potti’s published research. “There were about 40 that had original data that were generated at Duke,” Califf said. “We had an institutional need to understand the veracity of the manuscripts that had the institution’s name on it.” “About a third of the manuscripts are being fully retracted,” Califf said. “About a third are having a portion retracted with other components remaining intact, and about a third seem to be ok.” “In those retractions and partial retractions, there is a clear correlation between the need to withdraw the data and the extent to which the data originated from Dr. Potti,” Califf said. “It looks like they’re fundamentally not reproducible.” No timeframe was given for these retractions. There’s plenty more in The Cancer Letter’s current issue , including details on the lawsuits filed against Duke, Potti, and his colleagues by a number of former clinical trial participants. The Economist also covers the Potti story this week, and Darrel Ince has a piece on it in the journal Significance .
撤稿情况发生的几率 有逐年上升之势 ，有人以 Medline 数据库为例进行统计分析结果显示，自 20 世纪 50 年代以来，截止 2007 年 10 月 21 日 ，MEDLINE累计收录已经发表的论文数量超过 1700 万篇，其中撤稿 871 篇。首次撤稿出现在 20 世纪 70 年代，但是之后的撤稿比例有上升态势。 来自 Thomson Reuters 科技信息公司的数据显示出同样的发展势态， 2001 年到 2010 年十年之间撤稿增加了 14 倍多，由 2001 年的 22 篇跃增到 2010 年的 339 篇， 2011 年的前 6 个月撤稿又有 210 启。 Infection and Immunity 主编和 mBio 主编联合撰文指出，撤稿率的高低与其杂志的影响因子（ IF ）之间有出其意料的正相关性， IF 越高的期刊，往往撤稿率越高。但是令人奇怪的是 SCI 刊源的《 Acta Crystallographica Section E 》， 2007 年曾经上升为国人 SCI 的贡献状元， IF 并不高（ 0.41 ），但是撤稿特高！ 2006-2010 年之间撤稿超过百篇。井冈山大学成为撤稿最多的中心区，除了个别人受到处理之外，似乎看不到撤稿后的其他处理结果。《 Acta Crystallographica Section E 》的指标变化如下： Acta Crystallographica Section E 的变化 However, the greatest number of retraction notices – 105 between 2006 and 2010 – were published by the crystallography journal Acta Crystallographica Section E , which has an impact factor of just 0.41. All the retracted papers relate to a large-scale fraud, detected in 2010, by two researchers at Jinggangshan University, in China, who were subsequently fired. 《晶体学报 E 辑》的特 点、 《 晶体学报 E 辑》十年成就了中国 1.2 万篇 SCI 论文 、 井冈山大学论文造假始末 已经有博文介绍。《临床微生物杂志》（ Journal of Clinical Microbiology ）近期因为撤稿备受关注，2011年上半年 中国人民解放军空军总医院 Tianzheng Deng 等人因抄袭，论文撤稿之后，巴西有人也是在Journal of Clinical Microbiology杂志上发表的论文，因为抄袭了 4 年前已经在该刊发表的论文而被撤稿，但是这篇抄袭论文的再次发表，其中疑点多多，值得编辑同仁浏览，了解撤稿责任的背后故事，从中汲取经验教训。请看附件 should-journals.pdf
据Retraction Watch网站2011年8月26日的报道，原在东伦敦大学（University of East London）执教的 Jatinder Ahluwalia ,因为2003年在《 Journal of Neurochemistry 》杂志上发表的论文涉嫌学术不端： Ahluwalia, J., Yaqoob, M., Urban, L., Bevan, S. and Nagy, I. (2003), Activation of capsaicin-sensitive primary sensory neurones induces anandamide production and release. Journal of Neurochemistry , 84:585–591. doi:10.1046/j.1471-4159.2003.01550.x 而且这篇论文也是 Jatinder Ahluwalia 在英国伦敦帝国理工学院（Imperial College London）获得其博士学位论文中的一部分。作者在撤稿原因中的陈述如下： The authors wish to draw attention that in spite of several proof readings, regrettably, the unit for the amount of anandamide released from cultured primary sensory neurons was incorrectly entered into the manuscript therefore, it was incorrectly published in Ahluwalia et al. (2003) . Further, the authors of this manuscript wish to provide a more-informative legend for Fig. 2. The correct unit for the amount of anandamide released by cultured primary sensory neurons should be pmol/ml instead of pmol/μl throughout the manuscript. 资深作者 Istvan Nagy 也认为与 Jatinder Ahluwalia 合作的论文的确存在问题，在给 Journal of Neurochemistry 的信件（见附件）中这样写道： In 2003, we reported in the Journal of Neurochemistry (Ahluwalia et al., Activation of capsaicin-sensitive primary sensory neurones induces anandamide production and release. J. Neurochem., 84, 585: 591; 2003) that application of capsaicin (10nM or 100nM) or KCl (50mM) to adult rat cultured primary sensory neurons results in increased anandamide content of the superfusate of the cells. In one of our recent studies, we repeated a part of the experiment we described in that Journal of Neurochemistry paper. While we found that application of capsaicin or KCl indeed results in increased anandamide content of the superfusate, regretfully, I have to inform you that our current data indicate that the concentration of anandamide in the superfusate we reported in the Journal of Neurochemistry paper must be incorrect. Based on our current data, we can estimate that the superfusate of 500 cultured primary sensory neurons, after incubating the cells in 100nM capsaicin for 5 minutes, could contain ~ 7 fmol/ml anandamide, in average. However, in the paper we reportedthat 250l superfusate of 500 cultured primary sensory neurons, following 3 minutes incubation in 100nM capsaicin contained 2.07pmol/ml anandamide, in average. Based on our current data, we can also estimate that 5 minutes incubation of 500 cultured primary sensory neurons in 100nM capsaicin or 50nM KCl results, respectively, in ~47fmol/ml and ~68fmol/ml anandamide in the cells and superfusate together, in average. Our current data are obtained from two independent experiments, and measurements were done in two laboratories using different machines and conditions (i.e. extraction, solvents, etc). Therefore, I think that our current data indicate the correct range of anandamide that 500 cultured primary sensory neurons could produce following capsaicin or KCl application. A possible reason for the incorrect measurements, in our previous experiments, could be that instead of anandamide alone, we measured anandamide and other lipid compounds of very similar molecular mass together, because, due to the lack of internal standard and the use of single quad mass spectrometry, we could not differentiate between molecules of very similar molecular mass. Therefore, it appears that the conclusion of the Journal of Neurochemistry paper is based on data with a large artefactual component. Jatinder Ahluwalia2004年在《自然》杂志上发表的一篇论文于2010年11月被撤销,10多年前曾因论文数据捏造被剑桥大学开除。最终Jatinder Ahluwalia在帝国理工学院（Imperial College）获得博士学位后，在东伦敦大学（University of East London）执教，现在因为又有一篇论文被发现存在学术不端行为而离开了东伦敦大学。伦敦帝国理工学院针对Jatinder Ahluwalia的第二篇撤稿论文展开了对其学位 的有效性问题进行调查， 最终结果值得关注。 资深作者 Istvan Nagy 的信件： nagy letter.pdf
首先说明，这篇博文的题目是风马牛相集的结果。 本来，《 Cell 》撤稿与刘实无关，因为所撤之稿非刘实所写。 但《 Cell 》撤稿却又与刘实相集，因为它是刘实狂言的 CNS 生命科学论文至少三分之一是错的而应撤稿之刘论的具体体现之一。 《 Cell 》的最新一篇撤稿是： Cell, Volume 143, Issue 3 , 485, 29 October 2010 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.10.011 Retraction Notice to: Assembly of Endogenous oskar mRNA Particles for Motor-Dependent Transport in the Drosophila Oocyte Alvar Trucco , Imre Gaspar and Anne Ephrussi (Cell 139 , 983 998; November 25, 2009) In this paper, we used cryoimmuno-electron microscopy and live-cell imaging to investigate the sequential assembly of oskar mRNA into an mRNP competent for transport from the Drosophila nurse cells to the oocyte posterior pole. We have recently identified instances in all of the figures where the cryoimmuno-EM data were inappropriately manipulated by the first author. The manipulations do not affect the live-cell imaging data. We are in the process of reanalyzing the raw experimental cryoimmuno-EM data but can already state that the published conclusions are not fully consistent with the raw data. We are therefore retracting the paper. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this might have caused. 而刘实在双规前几天还发表了 《细胞》撤稿，一大群作者的成就感大减 一文。调侃《 Cell 》把另一篇几十名作者合写的一篇论文给撤了，并说：这一撤稿，好多人的成就就被打了水漂。 所以，现在倒念起刘实来，我还真被他的英明折服，更为他的勇敢感动。 下面是我从刘实的求真网站上找到的一篇刘实投给《 Cell 》而被拒稿、但后来发表在高人所编的真顶尖（锐）杂志的文章。按他的文章所指，《 Cell 》撤稿的力度还远远不够。而这篇文章所列的还是刘实 2008 年前的投稿。好像他后来还给《 Cell 》投过一些也被拒稿。但他的文章现在倒念起来还都是对的（在我看来）。 A Summary of Cell s Rejections on Shi V. Lius Submissions Title Submitted Rejected Published* Searching for the Deep Root and Fundamental Mechanism of Biotic Aging 20050311 20050318 LB 5:89-91, 2005 HTM , PDF Cellular Senescence: What Does It Really Mean? 20051004 20051016 LB 5:308-310, 2005 HTM , PDF Piggyback on a Nobel Prize or Show Its True Spirit 20060109 20060203 LB 6:12-15, 2006 HTM , PDF Stop Playing the Cell Differentiation Tune for Caulobacter 20060405 20060407 LB 6: 31-32, 2006 HTM , PDF Cell Division versus Cell Reproduction 20060816 20060817 LB 6:62-64, 2006 HTM , PDF Revisit Semi-Conservative DNA Replication and Immortal DNA Strand Hypothesis 20060824 20060825 LB 6:54-61, 2006 HTM , PDF Why we keep losing excellence in young scientists? 20060820 20060825 LB 6:65-66, 2006 HTM , PDF Are Stem Cells Really Immortal Cells? 20060909 20061002 LB 6:71-75, 2006 HTM , PDF Sorry, I Am Not Your Grandfather 20061117 20061118 Pioneer 1: 5-7, 2006 HTM , PDF Stem Cells Self-Renewal or Cell Biologists Self-Cheating? 20061219 20061223 LB 6:106-109, 2006 HTM , PDF What Is a Stem Cell? 20070129 20070130 LB 7:12-17, 2007 HTM , PDF Lius Message Blocked by Top Journals 20070314 20070315 Sci. Ethics 2: 5-6, 2007 HTM , PDF Respecting Published Answers for Important Questions on Epigenetics 20070320 20070411 Top Watch 2: 19-20,2007 HTM , PDF No Real Evidence for Round Trip in Spermatogenesis 20070423 No Reply! LB 7:26-28, 2007 HTM , PDF Immortal Strand Does Not Exist but Nonrandom Strand Segregation Should Be Universal 20070722 20070803 LB 7:26-28, 2007 HTM , PDF An alternative view on nonrandom DNA segregation and cell life 20080810 No Reply Unpublished Induction of pluripotency: where is the evidence? 20081125 No Reply Top Watch 2:94, 2007 HTM , PDF iPS cells are man-made cancer cells 20080121 No Reply LB 8: 16-18, 2008 HTM , PDF Evidence for Selection of Pre-existing Stem Cells Rather than Induction of iPS Cells 20080501 No Reply LB 8: 52-54, 2008 HTM , PDF * LB = Logical Biology .This and other journals can be read at http://im1.biz 原文链接在： HTM , PDF
看了袁贤讯写的 现在写文章越来越麻烦 一文，深有同感！现在不仅国内有些刊物是这样，国外的有些刊物也是如此。原来本应由编辑干的活，现在都要求作者干了，让人无所适从！不同刊物对版面的要求五花八门，即使作者对着它的Sample issue格式写，也很难达到出版要求！于是，一封信来，一封信去，一些宝贵的时间就浪费在这种琐事上面了！ 大家可能要问，以前Editor能干的事，现在为什么不能干了？其实，并不是他不能干，而是他去干别的事情去了！什么事情呢？越权！就是超越Editor的权力当起了Reviewer！ 我曾经给国外一本杂志投稿，经三位reviewers评阅后，Executive editor来信告诉我同意录用，但必须在格式和文字上进行重大修改（注意：不是内容哦），并强调让论文写作公司修改。以下是他的来信原文： I am pleased to confirm that we can accept your paper for publication but before we can proceed further major revisions of it are needed. May I respectfully remind you that this is a rapid publication journal and, as such, no proofs of your paper will be issued to you before it is published. It is therefore imperative that what we send to the printers is correct in all details. You have been asked previously to advise your paper in accordance with the advice that is given in our Instructions to Authors as well as our Guidance Notes. It is therefore disappointing to record that you have not followed this advice. You would find the use of our Checklist, which is also available online via our website, to be of help to you. In addition you should also consult some recently published papers in this Journal to see the style that is preferred. Overall, the quality of the writing in your paper remains very poor, it would benefit it considerably if you could seek the help of a professional paper writing agency to ensure a much higher standard of presentation. Of particular concern are the following points. However, these are not necessarily complete and you must therefore carefully check your final manuscript against the advice we give in our Instructions to Authors. 于是，我根据他的建议，对照Instructions to Authors、Guidance Notes和Checklist，将文章从头至尾认真地修改了几遍，直到自己觉得满意后才寄回去。 令人没有想到的是，从第二封信起，Editor不提格式和文字的问题了，反而当起了Reviewer，一遍又一遍地指出我的研究结果不明确，要修改；我的分析数据不完整，要补充！前前后后的通信不下五个来回，我都忍气吞声地尽量按他的要求修改或说明。我觉得，如果经过Author与Editor之间的互动交流，可以真正提高一篇论文的质量，多改几回也未尝不是件好事！ 可是，事与愿违，他在后面的多次来信中对我的研究结果变本加厉地挑错，而且对我的文章已经越来越不满意了！请问这个Editor，你为什么弃三位Reviewers的评阅意见而不顾呢？你的权力应该是在格式和文字方面把关吧？就因为我们没让专门的写作公司修改就说我们的英语烂？对此，我很有意见，经与同事商量，决定主动撤稿，并对他的越权行为表达不满！ 下面就是我写的撤稿信原文： We determine to retract our manuscript for publication in your journal because you always surpass your right as an editor other than a reviewer. We have fully revised the article based on reviewers' suggestions, and also modified its style obeying the instruction to authors. Unfortunately, you indicate new challenges against it this time. Actually you always misunderstand our work and often suggest some unacceptable opinions. I want you know every research work is not complete at all, and the academic value of an article is the real importance but not grammar and words. Although we are not native English speakers, we have published about 10 papers in English journals. We wish you change your behavior as an editor and never mislead other authors. Thank you for your serious reply letters! 后来，这个Editor回了信，但现在已经找不到，大意是作为Author当然有撤稿的自由，但他还是会等到修回期限再做决定！此后，我们没有关注他的决定，也不打算再向这本杂志投稿！
标签: 撤稿
